I only have between 7,000-8,000 (amateurish to most of you) names in
my genealogy. My GED is composed of about 300,000 lines to include all
info. Problem: I don't own a printing company.

Seems to me there is genealogy and there is family history. I think
genealogy is about names, locations, census records and sources (and
maybe a little more by personal decision).

My 3 page, single-space resume is family history, not genealogy.
Recounting the court cases of my great grandfather who had 5 base born
children by 3 different ladies (married one) is family history, not
genealogy. I doubt that my grands and great grands will care about
that. Research notes can be kept elsewhere.

I have never released my tree to any commercial source - individuals
can look for me if they want my data and we will exchange.

I'm really tempted to eliminate the family history since I would not
lose anything important - or I could keep a Genealogy GED and a Family
History GED.

I know that method would not interest most of you but am I missing
anything?

This is what happens when you only sleep 3-5 hours per night.

Hugh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 11:32:11 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

I only have between 7,000-8,000 (amateurish to most of you) names in
my genealogy. My GED is composed of about 300,000 lines to include all
info. Problem: I don't own a printing company.

Seems to me there is genealogy and there is family history. I think
genealogy is about names, locations, census records and sources (and
maybe a little more by personal decision).

My 3 page, single-space resume is family history, not genealogy.
Recounting the court cases of my great grandfather who had 5 base born >children by 3 different ladies (married one) is family history, not >genealogy. I doubt that my grands and great grands will care about
that. Research notes can be kept elsewhere.

I have never released my tree to any commercial source - individuals
can look for me if they want my data and we will exchange.

I'm really tempted to eliminate the family history since I would not
lose anything important - or I could keep a Genealogy GED and a Family >History GED.

I know that method would not interest most of you but am I missing
anything?

This is what happens when you only sleep 3-5 hours per night.

Hugh

Seems to me there will be groups of relatives with different
preferences.... some interested in only the genealogy, others
fascinated in the family history, some wanting both (I tend to be in
the latter category). I recommend everything in one, put it into PDF
(CD, DVR or on-line) and let them decide what they want to look at. My
approach for the family is starting with the earliest known Hoffpauir,
and documenting all his descendants. It's gone from a 500 page "book"
when I started some 30 years ago to a 3400 page PDF "book" last year.
No one will read the whole thing.... but many will be happy to read
what is there about their close relatives.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:45:22 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
<invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 11:32:11 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

I only have between 7,000-8,000 (amateurish to most of you) names in
my genealogy. My GED is composed of about 300,000 lines to include all >>info. Problem: I don't own a printing company.

Seems to me there is genealogy and there is family history. I think >>genealogy is about names, locations, census records and sources (and
maybe a little more by personal decision).

My 3 page, single-space resume is family history, not genealogy.
Recounting the court cases of my great grandfather who had 5 base born >>children by 3 different ladies (married one) is family history, not >>genealogy. I doubt that my grands and great grands will care about
that. Research notes can be kept elsewhere.

I have never released my tree to any commercial source - individuals
can look for me if they want my data and we will exchange.

I'm really tempted to eliminate the family history since I would not
lose anything important - or I could keep a Genealogy GED and a Family >>History GED.

I know that method would not interest most of you but am I missing >>anything?

This is what happens when you only sleep 3-5 hours per night.

Hugh

Seems to me there will be groups of relatives with different
preferences.... some interested in only the genealogy, others
fascinated in the family history, some wanting both (I tend to be in
the latter category). I recommend everything in one, put it into PDF
(CD, DVR or on-line) and let them decide what they want to look at. My >approach for the family is starting with the earliest known Hoffpauir,
and documenting all his descendants. It's gone from a 500 page "book"
when I started some 30 years ago to a 3400 page PDF "book" last year.
No one will read the whole thing.... but many will be happy to read
what is there about their close relatives.

Of course I agree with you. But in recent years people have become a
bit lazy and want others to do the work for them. I'll trade 5,000
names for 10 names if that's all they have and call it even - but I
think they need to make some effort.

So, am I doing genealogy for me or for anyone who saw my web site?

Hugh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/06/18 12:32, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

I only have between 7,000-8,000 (amateurish to most of you) names in
my genealogy. My GED is composed of about 300,000 lines to include all
info. Problem: I don't own a printing company.

Am I right in thinking that you're looking to print out this research
and are looking to make it a more manageable length for printing? I
guess one question is why? Perhaps your looking to donate a copy to
your local library or family history society. If so, it's worth asking
whether they really would prefer a paper copy over an electronic copy.
But I assume you've done all that and have a good reason for wanting a
paper copy.

With a small but still readable font you can readily get 80 lines per A4
page. It'll be slightly less with US letter sized paper. Experimenting
with one of my own databases, three columns seems optimal for packing
content in: any more any too many lines start to wrap. Doing so I can
get about 130 lines per page. Printing your database double-sided in
three columns will perhaps produce a stack of paper about 5" high.
Maybe more on high quality acid-free paper. That's certainly a lot of
paper, but not unmanageably so. Realistically you'll need to divide it
into a few volumes.

If I wanted to print that, I'd find a company specialising and thesis
printing and binding and get them to do it. Most university towns have
such a company, and for that quantity I'd expect to pay a couple of
hundred pounds. You sometimes find PhD theses with vast appendices, so
the company will probably have had to deal with documents of this size
before.

But in order to keep the cost of printing and/or quantity of paper down,
you're looking to remove content from your GEDCOM. I don't think that's
likely to make a significant difference. Your figures suggest about 40
lines per person on average, which doesn't seem excessive. In fact,
it's almost exactly what I find in the first of my GEDCOM databases I
chose to check. It suggests you've perhaps got four properly sourced
events per person on average, and if you make significant use of
censuses and such like, this seems quite plausible.

Seems to me there is genealogy and there is family history. I think
genealogy is about names, locations, census records and sources (and
maybe a little more by personal decision).

My 3 page, single-space resume is family history, not genealogy.
Recounting the court cases of my great grandfather who had 5 base born children by 3 different ladies (married one) is family history, not genealogy. I doubt that my grands and great grands will care about
that. Research notes can be kept elsewhere.

How much of your GEDCOM file is actually devoted to this sort of thing?
Given your figures and description, I expect it's not much. I bet your
own three-page narrative is amongst the longest ones you've written and
for every individual with a long biography there are scores of others
with none. Removing them is probably a fair amount of work for a
relatively small gain. Even if you halved the length of the file, and
I'd be very surprised if you achieved anything like that, would it be
worth it? The result would still be a stack of a paper several inches
thick.

I have never released my tree to any commercial source - individuals
can look for me if they want my data and we will exchange.

I'm really tempted to eliminate the family history since I would not
lose anything important

I'd be reluctant to do that. You may think the aspects you call family
history are of less interest than the part you call genealogy, and some
people will agree with you. But others won't. Some people find a bare
tree of names, dates and places to be rather sterile without the
additional details you call family history. You've gone to the effort
of researching these extra details. Why remove them?

- or I could keep a Genealogy GED and a Family History GED.

I wouldn't split it in two. It'll result in significant duplication.
That will make the total longer and make it harder for you to update
details as they'll need changing in two (or more) places.

Richard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:16:03 +0100, Richard Smith
<richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote:

On 12/06/18 12:32, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

I only have between 7,000-8,000 (amateurish to most of you) names in
my genealogy. My GED is composed of about 300,000 lines to include all
info. Problem: I don't own a printing company.

Am I right in thinking that you're looking to print out this research
and are looking to make it a more manageable length for printing? I
guess one question is why? Perhaps your looking to donate a copy to
your local library or family history society. If so, it's worth asking >whether they really would prefer a paper copy over an electronic copy.
But I assume you've done all that and have a good reason for wanting a
paper copy.

At my age I like hard copy better than a computer screen. No one in my
family is interested in genealogy.

With a small but still readable font you can readily get 80 lines per A4 >page. It'll be slightly less with US letter sized paper. Experimenting
with one of my own databases, three columns seems optimal for packing
content in: any more any too many lines start to wrap. Doing so I can
get about 130 lines per page. Printing your database double-sided in
three columns will perhaps produce a stack of paper about 5" high.
Maybe more on high quality acid-free paper. That's certainly a lot of
paper, but not unmanageably so. Realistically you'll need to divide it
into a few volumes.

If I wanted to print that, I'd find a company specialising and thesis >printing and binding and get them to do it. Most university towns have
such a company, and for that quantity I'd expect to pay a couple of
hundred pounds. You sometimes find PhD theses with vast appendices, so
the company will probably have had to deal with documents of this size >before.

But in order to keep the cost of printing and/or quantity of paper down, >you're looking to remove content from your GEDCOM. I don't think that's >likely to make a significant difference. Your figures suggest about 40
lines per person on average, which doesn't seem excessive. In fact,
it's almost exactly what I find in the first of my GEDCOM databases I
chose to check. It suggests you've perhaps got four properly sourced
events per person on average, and if you make significant use of
censuses and such like, this seems quite plausible.

Seems to me there is genealogy and there is family history. I think
genealogy is about names, locations, census records and sources (and
maybe a little more by personal decision).

My 3 page, single-space resume is family history, not genealogy.
Recounting the court cases of my great grandfather who had 5 base born
children by 3 different ladies (married one) is family history, not
genealogy. I doubt that my grands and great grands will care about
that. Research notes can be kept elsewhere.

How much of your GEDCOM file is actually devoted to this sort of thing?
Given your figures and description, I expect it's not much. I bet your
own three-page narrative is amongst the longest ones you've written and
for every individual with a long biography there are scores of others
with none. Removing them is probably a fair amount of work for a
relatively small gain. Even if you halved the length of the file, and
I'd be very surprised if you achieved anything like that, would it be
worth it? The result would still be a stack of a paper several inches
thick.

Point made.

I have never released my tree to any commercial source - individuals
can look for me if they want my data and we will exchange.

I'm really tempted to eliminate the family history since I would not
lose anything important

I'd be reluctant to do that. You may think the aspects you call family >history are of less interest than the part you call genealogy, and some >people will agree with you. But others won't. Some people find a bare
tree of names, dates and places to be rather sterile without the
additional details you call family history. You've gone to the effort
of researching these extra details. Why remove them?

Point made.

- or I could keep a Genealogy GED and a Family History GED.

I wouldn't split it in two. It'll result in significant duplication.
That will make the total longer and make it harder for you to update
details as they'll need changing in two (or more) places.

Richard

Thanks for the response, Richard.

My thoughts were how complex it must be for a beginning genealogist if
he wants to do his own work and not copy. I find too many inaccuracies
in the genealogy of others.

A few others have many of my family names as a result of marriage,
etc. My goal was to become the "goto" person for accurate data. They
say I achieved that some time ago.

I added a few generations due to unarguable probability, not proof. No
matter how clearly one labels it as a guess, people pick it up and
list it as their own work without warning.

And I have copies of the census records from 1790 on my computer for
the Sullivans in VA, NC, AL. But they can be misleading - were all the
children theirs, adopted or a sister's? I have found Sullivan spelled
more than 100 ways.

And I have another problem... I Y-DNA match a cousin and a Wyatt. I
don't match any other Sullivan DNA tests and Wyatt doesn't match any
other Wyatts tested. But there were 2 Wyatt families in England who
were not found related - his ancestors went to MA and mine to VA. So
some one man or brothers impregnated Sullivan and Wyatt gals w/o
benefit of clergy after the Ice Age and they took the surnames of the
mother. Gang aft agley comes to mind...

Hugh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)